ORDER : 1. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs: “(i) That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to lodge a complaint/FIR to the Cybercrime Cell of the Police in order to know the identity of the creator and circulator of the email, so that the truth sees the light of the day, in the interest of law and justice. (ii) That suspension order dated 25.08.2021 (Annexure P-3), as also the memorandum issued to the petitioner dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure P-4) may very kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside, in the interest of law and justice.” 2. Since, the matter is pending consideration, therefore, we will not delve into the facts in detail, save and except, to observe that the petitioner is working as Assistant Professor (Grade-II) in the Department of Mechanical Engineering in respondent No. 2-Institute. On 11.06.2021, the Institute conducted interviews for the post of Registrar, however, on the very next day i.e. 12.06.2021, some person in the name of A.K.Sharma wrote a communication to the Hon’ble Prime Minister regarding illegal activity and financial fraud in the selection and allegations of bribe were also levelled. 3. On 25.08.2021, the Chairman sent a mail to the Director of the Institute calling upon him to lodge an FIR against the person, who sent the mail. It was thereafter that on 06.09.2021 the petitioner was served with a memorandum and according to the petitioner, he has been referred as the creator of the mail. 4. The petitioner replied to the said memorandum and he was thereafter placed under suspension which came to an end on 24.11.2021, but the same now has been extended by another 90 days. 5. As observed above, since the issue in question is still at large, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case, lest it cause prejudice to either of the parties, but would confine ourselves to the extension order of suspension. 6. 5. As observed above, since the issue in question is still at large, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case, lest it cause prejudice to either of the parties, but would confine ourselves to the extension order of suspension. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary, (2015) 7 SCC 291 cautioned against the undue and unreasonable protraction of suspension by holding that “suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory and temporary in nature and must perforce be of short duration.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court issued time bound direction for expeditious disposal of the disciplinary proceedings and directed that currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within three months the memorandum of charges is not served on the delinquent employee. It was further held that if the charge-sheet has been served, then a reasoned order must be passed for extension of suspension. 7. Now, adverting to the facts of the case, it would be noticed that the respondent-Institute had constituted a Committee to review the suspension of the petitioner, which vide its meeting held on 23.11.2021 gave the following recommendations: “Following were present: 1. Prof. Ravi Kumar Sharma, Dean (P&D) 2. Prof. R.K. Dutta, Dean (Academic) 3. Dr. Yogesh Gupta, Registrar. The matter regarding review of suspension in respect of Dr. Manoj Kumar Sinha Assistant Professor (On Contract), Department of Mechanical Engineering has been deliberated and found that the inquiry in the case has been got withhold by the delinquent Officer in Hon’ble High Court Shimla upto 26.11.2021. Therefore, the committee is of the view that the suspension may be extended under CCS (CCA) Rule 10(6) for the next 90 days or till the inquiry is completed whichever is earlier.” 8. Having gone through the aforesaid recommendations, we are clearly of the view that the same do not contain any valid reasons for continuing with the suspension of the petitioner merely because the Court has passed an order staying further proceedings in the inquiry. It cannot be held that the delinquent had stalled and withheld the departmental proceedings or else it would virtually amount to permitting the respondents to question the proceedings of this Court for which they could be conveniently proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act. 9. It cannot be held that the delinquent had stalled and withheld the departmental proceedings or else it would virtually amount to permitting the respondents to question the proceedings of this Court for which they could be conveniently proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act. 9. That apart, we need to remind ourselves what the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed regarding the long period of suspension and observed as under: “12. Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. The suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision of his Department, has to endure this excruciation even before he is formally charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement.....” 10. The law laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary’s case (supra) has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision in Civil Appeal Nos. 8427-8428 of 2018 titled State of Tamil Nadu vs. Promod Kumar, decided on 21.08.2018. 11. At this stage, we also need to notice that earlier the allegations of the respondents as contained in the Article of Charges were that the petitioner created and further circulated and disseminated the false and damaging information through email as well as through Whatsapp in the public domain and mass media. However, in the reply, the stand of the respondents is that the Institute never named and referred the petitioner as creator of the email. 12. Now, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he circulated the derogative contents of the email. 13. As observed above, the order of extension of suspension passed by the respondents do not contain any valid reasons for continuing the petitioner under suspension, therefore, we quash the extension of the suspension order. 14. 12. Now, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he circulated the derogative contents of the email. 13. As observed above, the order of extension of suspension passed by the respondents do not contain any valid reasons for continuing the petitioner under suspension, therefore, we quash the extension of the suspension order. 14. Since, the proceedings are at the nascent stage, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere at this stage and would rather fall back on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357 wherein it was held that judicial review should not be pressed into service at the nascent stage when it was only issued as the applicant has opportunity to raise his objections and legal submissions before the Inquiring Authority. 15. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.